• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

Interactive Review Tables (Beta Test)

pozz

Machine
Forum Donor
Editor
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
1,281
Likes
1,832
#1
This thread is a beta test for the interactive review tables and charts.

Just note that tables work best fullscreen on desktops. On phones or tablets the sorting functions for columns don't work (default is chronological by date) and neither do the tooltips, although all filter dropdowns and search functions do.

Horizontal real estate being at a serious premium, the information that isn't in the sortable columns can be selected through filters. You can also pop open a tooltip (on desktop) with a little summary of the tested unit by hovering your mouse over the blue box on the far right-hand side.

Suggestions, complaints, better ideas?

Speaker Review Index

The table: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?pages/SpeakerTestData/

Electronics Review Index

Companion table for all electronics: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?pages/Audio_Equipment_Reviews/

Interactive Measurements Comparison Chart (under construction)

Currently being built by @Koeitje, who also initially proposed Tableau as a solution to organize our data. It's still a work in progress and much more involved given the types of comparisons (SINAD, SNR, etc.) we want to have at the ready.

Notes

General
  • Only @amirm's main reviews are in the default view. Select other users and review types in the relevant dropdowns.
Review Types
  • Review & Measurements: The format we know and love.
  • Review & Teardown: Detailed review of internals.
  • Review: A subjective review with restrained, intelligent impressions of design and use.
  • Full Update: Full remeasurement and commentary.
  • Update: Additional information or measurements by the OP.
  • Measurements: Just measurements.
  • Teardown: Just internals pics.
Speaker Reviews
  • Preference scores are taken from @MZKM's thread. See his other initial thread for an explanation of how the ratings are calculated.
  • @amirm's review of the JBL Control 1 Pro and JBL 305P Mk2 has an in-depth explanation of speaker measurements and their interpretation.
  • A full end-to-end explanation of speaker measurements, their relationship to what you hear and the value of preference scores is found in Floyd Toole’s book Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms, 3rd ed. (2017). Preference scores show a correlation of 0.9 to the results of blind listening tests.
Electronics Reviews
  • Reviews and update posts often contain more than one tested unit, and update posts are often in other threads. I've tried to capture all references individually, at least when it's new or unique data or analysis.
 
Last edited:

pozz

Machine
Forum Donor
Editor
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
1,281
Likes
1,832
#2
Sidebar on Price

I’ve defaulted to recording the just the original MRSP in USD and converting from the original currency when necessary. I have ignored inflation, discounts, timing and market availability. There’s a good reason to do so: it’s incredibly hard to keep up with current prices. Not to mention that the true cost of any piece of gear involves shipping, taxes and sundry difficult-to-account-for minima.

Maybe someone will bring up that the prices of vintage gear can’t be reliably compared that way. I could add a button to the scatterplot which will switch the charted prices from adjusted to unadjusted figures based on US CPI. But that’s financial measurebating in my book.

There might be some merit to recording the initial price, regardless of currency, in the market the component was first released. I like it for the historical accuracy, but that would add to the work.


Sidebar on Data

I’ll definitely need help maintaining and populating these sheets. Two or three reliable volunteers would really scale the work down. If you think you're up to it please PM me.

There are a few columns that I’ve left mostly unpopulated because the idea only came to me recently:
  • Release Date
  • Original MRSP (USD) [not actually all that recently, but accuracy is difficult, so many entries are blank or only partially reliable]
  • DAC Chip
  • Operational Class (e.g., Class A, Class D)
  • Amp Module (e.g., Hypex, ICEpower)
  • No. of Channels (just Mono, Stereo, Multichannel—nothing more than that)
These would require a great deal of time spent on research to complete. I've so far inserted a few entries into the measurements spreadsheet, but depending on what people like I could add them to the electronics one as well (whenever that gets finished).

In any case, please help me work out what you'd like to see in these tables/charts in this thread.
 
Last edited:

pozz

Machine
Forum Donor
Editor
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
1,281
Likes
1,832
#3

sweetchaos

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 29, 2019
Messages
155
Likes
212
Location
BC, Canada
#4
I didnt realize that you would be using Tableau...that's great!

My first thoughts on the speaker table:
1. "IK Multimedia iLoud Micro" is currently classified as "Desktop" but it's definitely a studio monitor, isn't it? Also, what classifies as a desktop speaker? Consider combining the two categories into one.
2. Add an "active/passive" column. Example: If I try to find an active speaker, I would need to enable 3 categories: lifestyle, desktop, studio-monitors. Otherwise, I could just select "active" and be done in one step.
3. I think "bookshelf" might be better than "standmount"? I mostly heard the term "bookshelf" online. Example: Amazon.com shows 1000+ results for bookshelf and 4 results for standmount.

Overall, awesome progress! Thanks for your effort!
 

pozz

Machine
Forum Donor
Editor
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
1,281
Likes
1,832
#5
  1. Just size is what I had in mind for the JBL 104 and IK iLoud. But I guess both are monitors in the end. Ok. I'll combine them. I had thought that most people would buy these as computer speakers, not for mixing.
  2. I had one before but it adds to the "horizontal real estate". There's the Amplification dropdown filter where you can click one category or the other or both. Does it make more intuitive sense to add it back?
  3. Never liked the term "Bookshelf". Ah well. Do you think people would be confused? (Same question for the Floorstanding category. That term seems as well-known as "Towers".)
What about other stuff like this?:
  • No. of ways (2-way/3-way)
  • Box Types (Sealed/Ported [plus location of port]/Transmission Line/Open Baffle/Esoteric)
  • Coaxial or not
  • Horn or not
  • Driver Types/Sizes
  • Poles (Dipole/Bipole)
It's hard to decide which of these details are clutter and which useful. It's usually easier to decide once we get more samples.

@napilopez @trl @NTomokawa @STUDIO51 Thoughts? You guys had posted the first in-depth reviews.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Messages
30
Likes
28
#6
Hi @pozz

I’m testing on a mobile and would suggest changing the column order, so that the ‘product’ and ‘brand’ are first, as in the mobile view all you can see initially is ‘date’ and I think ‘type’.

Just my 2 pence worth.
 

pozz

Machine
Forum Donor
Editor
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
1,281
Likes
1,832
#7
I didnt realize that you would be using Tableau...that's great!
Thanks, though I'm far from good at it. The data-chopping and visualization features mostly make sense, sometimes not, and some simple things are maddening.
 

pozz

Machine
Forum Donor
Editor
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
1,281
Likes
1,832
#8
Hi @pozz

I’m testing on a mobile and would suggest changing the column order, so that the ‘product’ and ‘brand’ are first, as in the mobile view all you can see initially is ‘date’ and I think ‘type’.

Just my 2 pence worth.
So this is what I see on my S10.

Do you think the review & reviewer info should be last, maybe after the preference scores?

Screenshot_20200129-064745_Chrome.jpg
 
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Messages
30
Likes
28
#9
I think so. I’m just thinking about how some users might want to scroll through the list rather than filter. The product name is probably the most important information for those users.
 

sweetchaos

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 29, 2019
Messages
155
Likes
212
Location
BC, Canada
#10
Another one for speakers (and maybe all electronics):
-Country of Origin.
I know that if I buy Kef speakers outside of England, that duties and shipping costs will be included into the price already. So to minimize my cost, I would choose speakers more local to me. Also, I know some people are very patriotic and love to support their country, so it makes sense to filter by country where speaker company is located.
 

pozz

Machine
Forum Donor
Editor
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
1,281
Likes
1,832
#11
Another one for speakers (and maybe all electronics):
-Country of Origin.
I know that if I buy Kef speakers outside of England, that duties and shipping costs will be included into the price already. So to minimize my cost, I would choose speakers more local to me. Also, I know some people are very patriotic and love to support their country, so it makes sense to filter by country where speaker company is located.
I'd disagree with adding that information since that really only applies to boutique companies.

These days parts and materials are globally sourced, and large manufacturers are multinational corporations.
 

trl

Addicted to Fun and Learning
King of Mods
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Messages
939
Likes
893
Location
Iasi, RO
#12
What about other stuff like this?:
  • No. of ways (2-way/3-way)
  • Box Types (Sealed/Ported [plus location of port]/Transmission Line/Open Baffle/Esoteric)
  • Coaxial or not
  • Horn or not
  • Driver Types/Sizes
  • Poles (Dipole/Bipole)
Hello,

If it's about the columns to be used in filtering speakers reviewed data, I would like to see the below:
  • No. of ways (1/2/2.5/3.5/4) - needs definitely to be there, even that the best speaker is a one way without filter inside (the imaginary perfect driver inside able to reproduce every freq. from 20-20000Hz).
  • Speaker type (Indoor/Outdoor/Soundbar) - might worth adding this field too.
  • Speaker destination (Home Hi-Fi/Studio monitors) - also an important aspect (https://www.neumann.com/homestudio/en/difference-between-home-stereo-speakers-and-studio-monitors ).
  • Monitor type (Nearfield/Midfield/Farfield) - Important aspect too.
  • Box type (sealed/ported) - needs to stay there too, we all know that sealed box means lower group delay, even if this may not be audible it's definitely measurable.
  • Port location (front/back/side) - is very important, especially for those wanting to mount their speakers in close proximity of a back-wall, where front port location is desirable instead of back front.
  • Coaxial or not - seems pertinent enough, I think its good that you choose this, although it's mostly used in car audio systems, but I think it should be here.
  • Driver Types (full range/woofer/subwoofer/midrange/tweeter) - I guess everyone wants this to be here.
  • Driver sizes - definitely driver size needs to be here.
  • Poles (Mono/Bi/Di/Omni-pole) - definitely needs to be here.
  • Active/Passive: besides the active monitors, a lot of manufacturer are creating active speakers these days (bookshelves and towers too).
  • Amplifier type (Class A-B/D) - some folks prefers A/B, others D, so it worth to have a selection with such a field too.
  • Speaker mount (Shelf/Tower/In-wall/In-ceiling) - Very important aspect (https://musicgearo.com/studio-monitors-explained-nearfield-midfield-farfield/).
 

pozz

Machine
Forum Donor
Editor
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
1,281
Likes
1,832
#13
I've been mostly working on this from my smallish laptop. The full view is below. If you look at the right-hand corner of the table you'll see that I sized it too big and it exceeds the graphical boundary of the forum. I'm going to adjust it so that it fits within that white border.

I can add certain details in the tooltip that pops up, as below, though again space is a limiting factor. Another row of filters would be no issue.

The main thing I'm considering is which of these details the viewership can easily pick up from reviews and other sources vs. those necessary for quick searches. The latter being stricter than the former.

1580371805189.png
 
Last edited:

pozz

Machine
Forum Donor
Editor
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
1,281
Likes
1,832
#14
Hello,

If it's about the columns to be used in filtering speakers reviewed data, I would like to see the below:
  • No. of ways (1/2/2.5/3.5/4) - needs definitely to be there, even that the best speaker is a one way without filter inside (the imaginary perfect driver inside able to reproduce every freq. from 20-20000Hz).
  • Speaker type (Indoor/Outdoor/Soundbar) - might worth adding this field too.
  • Speaker destination (Home Hi-Fi/Studio monitors) - also an important aspect (https://www.neumann.com/homestudio/en/difference-between-home-stereo-speakers-and-studio-monitors ).
  • Monitor type (Nearfield/Midfield/Farfield) - Important aspect too.
  • Box type (sealed/ported) - needs to stay there too, we all know that sealed box means lower group delay, even if this may not be audible it's definitely measurable.
  • Port location (front/back/side) - is very important, especially for those wanting to mount their speakers in close proximity of a back-wall, where front port location is desirable instead of back front.
  • Coaxial or not - seems pertinent enough, I think its good that you choose this, although it's mostly used in car audio systems, but I think it should be here.
  • Driver Types (full range/woofer/subwoofer/midrange/tweeter) - I guess everyone wants this to be here.
  • Driver sizes - definitely driver size needs to be here.
  • Poles (Mono/Bi/Di/Omni-pole) - definitely needs to be here.
  • Active/Passive: besides the active monitors, a lot of manufacturer are creating active speakers these days (bookshelves and towers too).
  • Amplifier type (Class A-B/D) - some folks prefers A/B, others D, so it worth to have a selection with such a field too.
  • Speaker mount (Shelf/Tower/In-wall/In-ceiling) - Very important aspect (https://musicgearo.com/studio-monitors-explained-nearfield-midfield-farfield/).
I think I should limit it to adding a maximum of five sortable elements as filters and the tooltip. I haven't settled on any yet. Once we have maybe 50-100 speaker reviews up it will be easier to decide what's essential.

On the fence:
  • Box Type: Sealed/Ported (Port Location in parentheses): Seems a good idea.
  • No. of Ways: 1/2/2.5/3.5/4 (Coaxial in parentheses): I think this can be easily looked up.
  • Poles: Mono/Bi/Di/Omni-pole (Cardioid in parentheses): Not sure.
  • Horn or not. ("Horn" in the sense of acoustic loading specifically.) Not sure what category this could fall under.
I would leave these out:
  • Country of Origin: For the reasons mentioned above. Speakers are by nature global, either in parts, production or ownership.
  • Speaker type (Indoor/Outdoor/Soundbar): Under the current Speaker Type (Center/Bookshelf/Studio Monitor/etc.) I'll add a "PA Speaker" for the outdoor kind or "Soundbar" if those are ever tested. Those speakers disguised as rocks for backyard will fall under "Lifestyle".
  • Speaker destination (Home Hi-Fi/Studio monitors): Currently included in Speaker Type above. "Home Hi-Fi" goes without saying IMO.
  • Speaker mount (Shelf/Tower/In-wall/In-ceiling): I think this also goes without saying and is somewhat captured by "Speaker Type" as I currently have it.
  • Monitor type (Nearfield/Midfield/Farfield): In acoustics these are defined terms. In speaker lore, not really. So this is too subjective to be worth adding. There have been enough debates even here on what "midfield" is.
  • Driver Types (full range/woofer/subwoofer/midrange/tweeter): I meant this more as AMT/Dome-shaped/Ribbon/Electrostatic. Seems a bit unnecessary in either case.
  • Driver size: This won't be very searchable unless I create individual columns for each driver.
  • Active/Passive: Already added under "Amplification" in the filters. I don't have space to add another column unfortunately, although I could since there' horizontal scrolling enabled for the table. I don't view it as critical given that there is a dropdown.
  • Amplifier type (Class A-B/D): I think this isn't too useful because, well, I'd also be compelled to look up each type of amplification for each driver, as well as the module (ICEpower/etc.) and power, which would make tracking too complex.
 
Last edited:

bobbooo

Active Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2019
Messages
285
Likes
267
#15
This thread is a beta test for the interactive table of speakers reviews (the electronics one is just around the corner, delayed by sheer size). It’s easier to keep speakers and electronics in two separate tables fed by separate sheets. They’ll be maintained in a finalized Master Review Index when they’re done.

I’ll start a separate thread for the beta version of the Master Measurements Chart somewhat later, around the end of February. That’s still a work in progress and much more involved given the types of comparisons we want to have at the ready.

The table works best fullscreen on desktops, but I tested it halfscreen, on a tablet and my phone. The scrolling is responsive enough and since each line item is unique clicking anywhere will to take you to the linked review. iOS seems to handle it just fine.

Despite that horizontal real estate still is at a serious premium, so the sortable aspects I didn’t include as columns can be selected through filters. You can also pop open a tooltip with a little summary of the tested unit by hovering your mouse over the blue box on the far right-hand side.

Suggestions, complaints, better ideas?

Master Review Index (beta): Speakers

Preference scores are taken from @MZKM's thread. See his other initial thread for an explanation of how the ratings are calculated.

@amirm's review of the JBL Control 1 Pro and JBL 305P Mk2 has an in-depth explanation of how speaker measurements are performed and their interpretation.

A full end-to-end explanation of speaker measurements, their relationship to what you hear and the value of preference scores is found in Floyd Toole’s book Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms, 3rd ed. (2017).

The table itself can be found through this link: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?pages/SpeakerTestData/

Master Review Index: Electronics (under construction)

Companion beta test for all electronics. Currently delayed.
This is great, thanks! Could you add columns for 'Performance per $' (both including and excluding LFX) i.e. the preference scores divided by price? As that would give a good indicator of value for money. It would also show, once enough speakers are measured, whether a particular brand offer consistently good performance for the price, over their whole product range, which a lot of people would consider a good indicator of an honest company selling well-engineered products (conversely, companies that are consistently ripping off consumers could be easily identified).

You could remove the 'Review Type' column to make room for these, as that information is already in the pop-up info box for each speaker (plus the important Klippel measurements are already identifiable by having preference scores). Numerical data however like performance/$ need to be sortable in order to see a ranking from best to worst, so would have to actually be in the table to be useful.
 

pozz

Machine
Forum Donor
Editor
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
1,281
Likes
1,832
#16
This is great, thanks! Could you add columns for 'Performance per $' (both including and excluding LFX) i.e. the preference scores divided by price? As that would give a good indicator of value for money. It would also show, once enough speakers are measured, whether a particular brand offer consistently good performance for the price, over their whole product range, which a lot of people would consider a good indicator of an honest company selling well-engineered products (conversely, companies that are consistently ripping off consumers could be easily identified).

You could remove the 'Review Type' column to make room for these, as that information is already in the pop-up info box for each speaker (plus the important Klippel measurements are already identifiable by having preference scores). Numerical data however like performance/$ need to be sortable in order to see a ranking from best to worst, so would have to actually be in the table to be useful.
I'm averse to adding Performance per $ as columns because the difference in Preference scores is so small, but price differences can be very large. I can easily add those ratios to the tooltip though. I'd also say that the most valuable thing are the reviews and measurements themselves, not the ranking.

I also want to keep Review Type because not only Amir is reviewing speakers, other members will eventually posts teardowns and so on, and it should be understood what kind of review you'll get without having to hover over the blue boxes first. It's also really important to differentiate updates from the initial full review post (you'll see how important this is once the electronics table goes up, where there are over 1500 entries).
 
Last edited:

bobbooo

Active Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2019
Messages
285
Likes
267
#17
I'm averse to adding Performance per $ as columns because the difference in Preference scores is so small, but price differences can be very large. I can easily add those ratios to the tooltip though. I'd also say that the most valuable thing are the reviews and measurements themselves, not the ranking.
I'd argue the disparity between the range of scores and price (a factor of ~40 for price yet ~3 for scores) is precisely the reason to include performance per $, as this disparity shows that a lot of speakers are not great value for money, as they only offer a small increase in sound quality for a lot more money. Surely this is information that should be clearly presented to the readers of this site, which has as one of its primary aims both highlighting good, reasonably priced audio engineering and performance, and exposing companies that are overcharging consumers with relatively mediocre or poor performing products. Having performance per dollar in the tooltip would be a nice addition, but it won't allow easily seeing the best and worst value speakers as would be possible in a sortable column, which I think would be very informative for consumers, and may even influence manufacturers to both increase the quality of their products and reduce prices, in order to be closer to the top of such a performance per $ ranking.
 
Last edited:

pozz

Machine
Forum Donor
Editor
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
1,281
Likes
1,832
#18
I'd argue the disparity between the range of scores and price (a factor of ~40 for price yet ~3 for scores) is precisely the reason to include performance per $, as this disparity shows that a lot of speakers are not great value for money, as they only offer a small increase in sound quality for a lot more money. Surely this is information that should be clearly presented to the readers of this site, which has as one of its primary aims both highlighting good, reasonably priced audio engineering and performance, and exposing companies that are overcharging consumers with relatively mediocre or poor performing products. Having performance per dollar in the tooltip would be a nice addition, but it won't allow easily seeing the best and worst value speakers as would be possible in a sortable column, which I think would be a very informative for consumers, and may even influence manufacturers to both increase the quality of their products and reduce prices, in order to be closer to the top of such a performance per $ ranking.
We can revisit this once we have more and more varied examples. Right now where my head's at it's likely to start a debate like we saw in the KH80 thread.
 

bobbooo

Active Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2019
Messages
285
Likes
267
#19
We can revisit this once we have more and more varied examples. Right now where my head's at it's likely to start a debate like we saw in the KH80 thread.
Nothing wrong with a heated debate. Just shows people are passionate about audio and making this speaker measurement project the best it can be. I didn't see anything wrong with the KH80 thread really. It was mostly just well thought out, rational arguments backed up by reasons and evidence, with the odd overreaction, misunderstanding or trolling comment, but that's to be expected on any forum. And it actually brought progress in the end, with Amir measuring the KEF speaker on and off axis to see if that did appreciably affect the measurements (he could have just done that for the KH80 and avoided the whole debate, but oh well!). Debate, peer-review, cross-checking, questioning data, corroboration etc. are all essential parts of good science :)
 
Last edited:

Arsonistic

New Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2020
Messages
4
Likes
2
#20
Looks pretty good, but I'd very much like to see price filtering being a range instead of a list, so you'd just specify minimum and maximum values rather than unchecking every option you're not interested in.
 
Top Bottom